[2007] KEHC 583 (KLR)

[2007] KEHC 583 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had provided sufficient evidence, through affidavits and supporting documents, to establish a prima facie case that the property in question may have been acquired as a result of corrupt conduct. Relying on the statutory mandate under section 56 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] KEHC 583 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission; Respondent: ThingA Developers Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 17 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Ex Parte Originating Motion for Prohibitory Order
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Anti Corruption Asset Freeze, Prohibitory Orders, Land Title Disputes
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Land and Property Anti Corruption Asset Freeze Prohibitory Orders Land Title Disputes

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission

Applicant

ThingA Developers Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Ex Parte Originating Motion for Prohibitory Order

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient evidence that the property was acquired as a result of corrupt conduct to justify a prohibitory order under section 56 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act.
  2. 2 Whether the court should prohibit the transfer or other dealings with the property L.R. NO. 22168 (I.R. NO. 71332) for six months.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had provided sufficient evidence, through affidavits and supporting documents, to establish a prima facie case that the property in question may have been acquired as a result of corrupt conduct. Relying on the statutory mandate under section 56 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, and consistent with its previous ruling in a similar matter involving related parcels of land, the court determined that it was appropriate to grant a prohibitory order. The order prohibits the transfer or other dealings with the property L.R. NO. 22168 (I.R. NO. 71332) for a period of six months from the date of the order. The court reserved the issue of costs...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • A prohibitory order is granted prohibiting the transfer or other dealings with property L.R. NO. 22168 (I.R. NO. 71332) for six months from the date of the order.
  • Costs of the application are reserved pending further proceedings.